This is the most consistent and the most prevalent of these threads of narrative presented in the textbook. This is the assertion drawn from the text as a whole, in which Estonia is depicted as a small, struggling nation, always under threat from larger, more powerful actors, but whose people keep up the fight and eventually, through perseverance, strength, and bravery, win out against those larger powers and establish (and then re- establish) the independent state of Estonia, for which this history textbook was written. This element of the narrative is presented in nearly every section of the textbook. Large sections are dedicated to resistance forces or battles where Estonians either were victorious or came close. Transitional passages evoke Estonian ancestral heritage and always placing the desire and fight for freedom from subjugation, specifically by rulers from outside of Estonia, as an ideal and a historic priority of the Estonian people. Even instances of defeat can be turned
42 into something greater: “The regime in power had seemingly eliminated the resistance movement. In fact, the relative silence that followed was a period of preparation for the resistance of 1987, which grew into a general resistance in 1988” (p. 300).
Now we turn to an analysis of President Meri’s professional rhetoric over the time period to measure to what extent and in what ways the interpretation of a historical narrative will change, thereby measuring, qualitatively of course, to what extent and in what ways the historical narrative presented in a national history textbook lessen or even cease in its effectiveness as a tool of socialization into the state given a changing political reality.
NARRATIVE INTERPRETATION: SPEECH ANALYSIS
President Lennart Meri served as President of the Republic of Estonia from 6 October 1992 to 8 October 2001, a period which covers the entirety of this textbook’s conception, production, and use in the Estonian public school system. This thesis has focused its analysis on the years 1994 through the first half of 1999 in order to get a range of historical narrative interpretation from the textbook’s conception through the end of the 1998 school year as a newer textbook became available for the next school year. The speeches analyzed are those of a charismatic and nationally-minded head of state, a historian of Finno-Ugric peoples, and the son of a diplomat. Each speech over this time period was directed toward a specific audience, was meant to accomplish or convey a specific goal or point, and had to be situated in the contemporary understanding of the Estonian state and its history. It is this understanding, or rather the constant reworking of that understanding, which is analyzed here. Analysis of these speeches will proceed chronologically, though not speech by speech or strictly year by year, and will identify congruencies and deviations over time between the individual speeches and the narrative found to have been constructed for the national history textbook as organized into assertions above. The assertions drawn from the textbook and described above will be the standard against which the interpretations of historical narrative as presented in the speeches will be judged. The progression of time will organize this section rather than the assertions themselves, though the assertions remain the measuring stick of change. Each speech is a snapshot of an understanding of the historical narrative at that time. Because, however, we must provide for the place and audience in any analysis of speeches, it is the general trend over the course of speeches which is of especial interest here.
43 The earliest speeches under study here are from 1994 and 1995, the time in which the textbook was originally conceived and produced. Across these speeches, especially when compared to speeches later in the decade, there is the constant presence of the recent Soviet experience. President Meri tended to use metaphors which conjured Soviet era or Cold War images in order to emphasize some message. For example, in December of 1994, Meri spoke of a metaphorical flame that could be seen “clear across the Gulf of Finland, a flame that grew to be a beacon of hope through the long, dark and cold years behind the Iron Curtain” (Meri, 5 Dec 1994). This same approach was used in October of 1994, evoking the memory of mass deportations and mass emigration, 30 to express empathy for the loss of a Swedish ship, named Estonia, and its crew. This use of the recent and dark past of subjugation to a foreign power clearly seems to be the result of an interpretation of the national narrative similar to that presented by our textbook, namely assertion 231 but also 3.32
The early speeches also evoke the Soviet past to rationalize the poor present state of affairs. For example, when so much was made of the citizenship and language laws of the newly re-independent Estonia, Meri attributed the pettiness to “arbitrary behavior by small bureaucrats [who] should have been thrown out together with Soviet rule and cannot be accepted in independent Estonia” (Meri, 17 May 1994). Throughout 1994, especially, mention of this recent past is often and always in a very negative and personal light.
These references made in these early speeches are used to affect a certain dark mental imagery in the audience.
As time passes—and either the political needs required or the memory was in fact changing, or both—evocation of this past is set in more neutral terms. The references also change to show a lingering conception of a dichotomous Western versus Eastern orientation: “If during the Cold War, the fate of Berlin became a kind of litmus test for Western security, then the Baltic states play that role now” (Meri, 19 October 1995). This reference to a litmus test is acknowledged but President Meri also uses the opportunity to get away from that perception of Estonia:
Estonia will not wish to limit its role to that of a litmus test, we would be glad to be the catalyst for new all-European security system. Please do not take these words as mania grandiose of a small state, our aspirations proceed from
30
“As an Estonian I can avouch to you that we have not suffered a loss claiming so many victims since the March mass deportations in 1949. We have not suffered a loss at sea claiming so many lives since the great September wave of flight by boat in 1944. (Meri, 2 October 1994).
31
Rule by foreigners has been a dangerous impediment to a free and sovereign Estonia.
32
44 our historical memory, from our worry for the future of Europe, from our wish
that Europe should survive” (Ibid).
This language is characteristic of the late 1995 and early 1996 speeches, wherein Meri hearkens back to “historical memory” without giving evocative details, but rather uses the moments to speak of the experience of a state which has “belonged in Europe for 700 years already” (Ibid). This evocation of a long history is one point which remains in Meri’s speeches throughout his presidency. In diverse situations, from sympathetic speeches33 to those on international law,34 Meri cites the ancient vintage of the peoples of the Baltic littoral and of Estonians, in particular. This is directly in line with the first assertion35
Also beginning about this time, there is a call in the speeches for a normalization of relations with Russia
and doesn’t change throughout the period of analysis.
36
By early 1997, the language regarding the East was that of mutual experience and positive in outlook. At a meeting of NATO and partner country heads of state, Meri said,
and a treatment of that state as an equal and a friend (though this rather hopeful conception will become less prominent over time). In mid-1996, Meri said, “If I am not grossly mistaken, it is anachronistic, if not also politically incorrect, to speak in terms of sphere-of influence, historic territories and such” (Meri, 27 June 1996), suggesting an attempt to “reset” the relationship to use the language of the Obama administration’s own diplomatic attempt at better relations with Russia. To assuage talk of the older conceptions, those which Meri wished to get away from, he put this new line more directly on a visit to New York with his fellow Baltic heads of state: “As you might imagine, in Vilnius we focused largely on security issues, in particular on the enlargement of NATO and the European Union. We did so not, as you also might imagine, out of fear of the East” (Meri, 25 June 1996).
I salute the presence here of our Russian partners. Their path to Madrid has been a long and difficult one. I myself have listened to the anti-NATO propaganda which came from Radio Moscow during Soviet times. Therefore I can well imagine the difficult task faced by our Russian friends in breaking
33
“He served the way Estonian captains have served for hundreds of years, and, up to the very last moment, was loyal to the laws of the sea” (Meri, 2 October 1994). This quote is from the speech about the loss of the
Estonia and its crew.
34
“Ever since the establishment of the Republic of Estonia in 1918 we had already been embraced by the fold of European states as a legal equal” (Meri, 3 December 1994).
35
That the Estonian people are an ancient, ethically constituted people.
36
45 these barriers. I am convinced that your presence here today is very important
(Meri, 09 July 1997).
Meri continued with this line in a later speech, saying that “the use of not only the Soviet Union but also “the former Soviet Union” as political notions or arguments have been sent into the dustbin of history” (Meri, 20 August 1997). The hopeful language of Meri’s speeches in the mid-1990s didn’t bear fruit for too long as his rhetoric returned to seeing Russia as the East and something apart: “Estonia is a natural gateway; a gateway between East and West, between North and South” (Meri, 15 March 1999). In this same speech, Meri said that Estonia would “continue engaging Russia and not to give up on Russia” (Ibid), reinforcing the fact that the two states had followed decidedly different paths.
But it is not merely the East with which Meri concerned himself in speeches. There is a constant appeal to the European Union and NATO on behalf of Estonia or the Baltic states as a group (depending upon the audience to the speech) about the advantages of enlargement. In the 1994 and 1995 speeches, this theme is present, but it really becomes conspicuous and, in fact, a predominant subject later in the decade. Meri speaks on behalf of other countries farther east or less developed economically, socially, and especially judicially as candidate countries. In these later speeches, there is a firmer conception of Estonia as a part of Europe and Meri is able to speak to these subjects more than in the brief mentions and appeals found in earlier speeches when, according to Meri, Estonia as a state was “still only just at a voice- breaking age” (Meri, 31 December 1995). But while a European orientation is important, clearly, to Meri’s interpretation of the modern national narrative, “historic experience” is never left completely behind, especially to domestic crowds. To the Riigokogu (Estonian parliament) in 1997, he reminded that “Estonia has never left Europe. However Europe has left Estonia. This is our historic experience, this is also our historic obligation and responsibility” (Meri, 8 September 1997).
Analysis of President Meri’s speeches over the course of four and a half years from a particular national narrative constructed for the Estonian national history textbook illustrates how different interpretations of the same history can be represented to a public. Using the four basic assumptions drawn from the textbook gives us a good snapshot of a particular political moment, one which is also found to be represented in the speeches of the early 1990s. As time and the political reality progress, though, that snapshot is used to measure just how far an interpretation is from that moment the snapshot was taken and in what ways. Though the assertions were basic derivations of the complex narrative presented in the textbook and, thus, the analysis of the speeches necessarily mapped the changing
46 interpretation of only those basic drives, the distance from textbook narrative to narrative as interpreted in the late 1990s is significant. Now, a brief iteration of the changing interpretations, presented above fluidly, of the basic assertions will give us a better picture of the relationship of each narrative assertion and Meri’s interpretation of each over time.
1. The Estonian people are an ancient, ethnically constituted people.
This assertion, regardless of the country’s name, is one likely to be found in any national history, no matter the politics from which it is constructed. There must be a historical basis for a people in order to give a coherent identity to the citizens of that state. In 1994, Meri’s interpretation of this assertion of the narrative as presented in History of Estonia is much the same as his interpretation in 1999 and over the entire course of that period. As a proud citizen of that state, and compounded by his responsibilities as a statesmen, there is no reason to expect a changed interpretation of this assertion. Meri recalls centuries of Estonian- ness in various contexts to various audiences over the period and achieves different ends in doing so. No matter the end, however, the underlying understanding of this aspect of the historical narrative remains consistent.
2. Rule by foreigners has been a dangerous impediment to a free and sovereign Estonia.
Early in the period studied, Meri’s interpretation of this assertion of the narrative analysis is much the same as is written in the textbook. Much language is used to describe the subjugation Estonia has just liberated itself from. Though this assertion is evoked using metaphors and asides to the main conversation, generally, it is a consistent and powerful part of his speeches in the early part of the mid 1990s. As time progresses, rather than speaking to “rule by foreigners,” i.e., the subjugation of old, Meri begins to speak of Estonia as a part of Europe, implying an equality with the other members of that Union but rarely mentioning it. This suggests a different interpretation than that printed in bold above and drawn from the textbook. While undoubtedly, Meri would have agreed with the statement written above, the direction Estonia was taking was toward inclusion in a greater body rather than merely defending a renewed sovereignty.
3. The fight for freedom by the Estonian people is an age-old fight against foreign rule.
The pattern in Meri’s speeches following from this assertion nearly mirrors that for the previous assertion. Toward the beginning of the time period studied, the fight is prevalent: it was a hard-fought freedom achieved with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Estonians
47 should be proud but not complacent and should continue the fight for an Estonia (even if that fight is merely one of public relations on the international scene). As the years pass and confidence grows in a secure Estonian state and a secure Estonian identity, however, this language falls away in Meri’s speeches. In its place is the language of a victorious people, a people who have been through great challenges and who may serve as a model or advisor to others in difficult times. The language is one of confidence in the Estonian cause in the later speeches, especially where Russia is concerned in the 1997 and 1998 speeches. In speeches about the European Union, Meri portrays Estonia as a willing and very able mediator between West and East, a knowledgeable agent that has dealt successfully with the East in the past. This assertion sees the most change over time in its interpretation by Meri as the “Ancient Fight for Freedom” can be said to have finally been won, and since, in the current world system, a similar loss of sovereignty to those of centuries past is unforeseeable.
4. The strength and perseverance of the Estonian people will always win out, eventually.
This, the final assertion, follows the same trajectory of interpretation over the time period as the first assertion. Again, as a proud citizen and a statesman, there is no reason to assume language other than that presented above. The Estonian people will persevere. This language infiltrates the previous assertion’s interpretation for Meri over the years and results in that already noted confidence of tone. As that Fight for Freedom is finally won, this assertion is confirmed, not questioned or in need of refinement, as the years move on.
It must be said that these four assertions drawn and refined from the textbook are not particular to Estonia, of course. Any politician or national advocate faced with running and building a young state, especially one coming from a colonial or otherwise subjugated state, would probably agree that these four assertions would form at least part of the drive of their historical narrative. The Estonian textbook’s narrative is little different from many other national history textbook narratives in that way. What makes the Estonian case so interesting is the speed with which this narrative became, at least partially,37
37
Though assertions 1 and 4 remained basically unchanged over the course of the time period studied, this statement refers to the theory set out in the first chapter of this thesis: i.e., any construction of a historical narrative constructed before being put into use and after any changes, even minor, to the political reality is outdated.
obsolete. Over the course of just five years, the historical narrative propagated in the state-issued textbook became irrelevant, at best, and an impediment to the successful implementation of new government aims, though it still remained a functioning tool of socialization in the school.
48 CONCLUSIONS
This thesis set out to describe the relationship between what is deemed one of the most powerful tools of socialization (the national history textbook) and the state into which the readership is being socialized as time moves and the social and political reality changes. This was accomplished through a narrative analysis of an Estonian history textbook, History of Estonia, and a subsequent analysis of the public rhetoric of the President of the Republic, Lennart Meri over the time period in which the textbook was conceived, produced, and in use in Estonian public high schools. The narrative presented in the textbook served as a baseline historical narrative from which to track a constantly-changing interpretation of that historical narrative over that time period.
From the textbook, four basic assertions were drawn and refined to be written as follows:
1. The Estonian people are an ancient, ethnically constituted people.
2. Rule by foreigners has been a dangerous impediment to a free and sovereign Estonia.
3. The fight for freedom by the Estonian people is an age-old fight against foreign rule.
4. The strength and perseverance of the Estonian people will always win the day, eventually.
These assertions form the narrative drive of the textbook and were used as a snapshot of the historical narrative propagated at the moment of the textbook’s production. In the subsequent